 We still got a couple minutes before I usually kick it off. But hey, you're here and that's what matters. Quick reminder, I'm gonna stay a little bit after class to help anybody out with registering for the test. So if you need any assistance, feel free to stick around after we're done at 7.30. Last week, we talked about the charts and the graphs and I got some fresh new material for those and I wanted to specifically practice the two different styles of those questions with you today. So we're gonna start with that. Since we kinda started looking at those last week, I think it'd be good to go over those a little bit more. So I'm gonna hit you with these ones first. These are the sentence completion style questions. Remember there were like those two different styles of charts and graphs data questions, right? We'll do a quick review of those, the strategies on that just to make sure we're on the same page. But the main idea here was to, again, know what we need to look at very quickly so that we can answer those questions efficiently. And let me take you over to our thing here. Where's my suit and there it is. So again, when we talk about these charts and graphs, you wanna make sure you look at the question carefully because that's gonna tell you which strategy you need to put to use. Again, we've got the first kind here where we have supporting claims style questions, where we're gonna find the claim in the paragraph and then just try to eliminate answers that don't match and then validate them with the data. The one that we're gonna practice right now, again, this is the second variant or form of these questions where we're gonna start with a question and we're gonna see that it will ask us to complete a sentence or complete the text. And so in those cases, remember, it's really, really important that you focus on that previous sentence because if it doesn't make sense with the rest of the content in the paragraph, especially that sentence that comes before it and the one that you're completing, then it's probably gonna be the wrong answer. So even if you see some data that might make sense, you wanna make sure that you're focusing first on completing that sentence or completing that paragraph logically. So you're still gonna eliminate the answers that don't match and then choose the best answer and validate that with the data. So make sure we're focusing first on the answers, right? But using a little bit of information from the text to help guide us, right? So we're gonna go question, text, answers, data. The data is the last thing we're gonna look at in all these cases. So that same rule applies for both of these types of questions, right? We're always gonna start with the question, make sure we know what we're looking for, find the thing we need from the text and then check the answers. But the part that you read from the text is gonna be a little different and the way you look at those answers will change depending on the type of question. So I set over the lovely new file. And yeah, not gonna lie. Those took some work, okay? They were harder to make these charts and graphs questions. I had to spend some time on these, but I'm happy with them. I feel good about them. I think you're gonna like them, hope you like them. So let's take a look. So I'm gonna give you a few minutes to try to work on these on your own and then we'll check them out together. But as I said, I already sent it over. It's also in the folder if you need it. It's the charts and graphs questions set to completion style because we're gonna do those ones first and then we'll go back and do the supporting claims style questions after this. So I'm gonna give you a, let's see. I feel like these could take a little bit more. Well, let's call it seven minutes today. We'll be extra generous to start the class today. And then you send me your answers when you got them. All right, so I'm gonna start the timer now and make sure, I'll share the screen too just so that you can make sure you're on the right thing here. And yeah, let's get to it. So I look at this one like I'm starting here, but then it says this issue. So I gotta go back and it says this number and I gotta go back. So this one I end up kind of reading the whole thing. Okay, but it is this right here. That's important. Yeah, that is actually right. Okay, okay, so now, but there also is this change. What has changed this? Okay, so yeah, this is it. And then you would go more, yeah. So you wanna go that way. That's, yep, that's, that makes sense. Mm-hmm, let's see how much time we got. We're still at, all right, four minutes. So this is all I need. And then I would just choose that, yeah. No, no, actually, uh-huh. Best predictor of what? Okay, internet use and how familiar they were with AI. Okay, so we're trying to see which of these two things is the best predictor. So is that true? And that would do it. Let's go just know if that's not true. That's gonna be wrong. Yeah, yeah, uh-huh, all right, there's an inconsistency. Where would there be an inconsistency on the individual level? Okay, so individuals, people that are generally doing, that's not, okay, I think I need two things that focus on these people. But they're not doing too little overall, is that accurate? Yeah, but when asked about American, okay. That's, that makes sense. They're really doing too much to help. I don't know if I see an inconsistency there. That means they just blame themselves. And this is now, it's not. All right, all right, that is seven minutes. So send me the answers you have now. If you need more time, we can maybe take a little bit more, but I wanna see what you got so far. I spent about five and a half minutes on these, which is about what you're supposed to spend, so I can understand if it's taking you a little longer. Okay, I'm seeing some of you with three responses. That's cool, okay, cool. Go ahead and take a little bit more time to finish. And then you can send me all five together. I just wanted to have an idea of where we were. Fortunately, you won't see more than like a few of these on the whole test. So if we can do five in a row really well, we're gonna be really well set for the test. I'm gonna put two more minutes on the clock and then we'll check our answers. There we go, 25 seconds. And if you don't finish by this point, that's okay. We'll just go through it together. I'm getting a lot of different answers for the first one. But it seems like we all agree on two and three, two, one. Let's go ahead and start looking at what we got here. So I have answers from Sophia, Camila, Steven, and Mohammed. Thank you very much. Nicholas, send me, okay, you just did beautiful, wonderful. You'll love to see it. Okay, cool. All right, we're gonna take a look at this first one here. Now, again, first thing I'm gonna do is look here at the questions as most logically completes the text. So I'm gonna go down here and start looking at this. I wanna look at this last sentence especially and then the one before that to get a better idea of what we're looking at here. So it says, Representative Joanne Kelwick notes that this issue, I don't know what that is yet, but okay, is most egregious in the Senate where something. Okay, so I need to pull some data from this chart and it needs to be data focused on the Senate because that is what the sentence is saying. And so if I'm gonna complete the sentence, I need to make sure it's logically completed. So that is gonna be an important detail. It says this issue, I'm not quite sure what that is yet. If I go back to read the previous sentence, which is what I'm supposed to do, it says the number is still quite low considering that there are 538 representatives and these minority groups make up almost half the US population. Okay, so I think without reading a whole lot more, what I understand here is that they're saying that like there are minority representatives. And again, if I start looking maybe like sometimes it's good to look at the title here. I see women of color serving in the 118th Congress. So okay, like I understand we're talking about female minorities in Congress. And they're saying that like it's still a low number because like if it was proportional to what we get, if we know, like if we have 538 and half of those people in the world or in the country are minorities, then you would expect like 220 or 70, 270 representatives that are minorities. And if half of those are women, you would expect like 135. So the fact that the number is 61 means that they're still underrepresented. And I'm just doing that quickly, that kind of quick math in my head to sort of understand the issue. But again, I could just focus on this. I could focus on this issue of the Senate and try to answer my question here. I could focus on this fact that they're trying to tell me that there should be more. That's the key idea here. There should be more women minority representatives considering the demographics of the US population and the size of Congress. That's the key point. And specifically one representative is telling us that in the Senate, we got this issue, okay? Hard. So I got to start choosing my answers and start going through and eliminating stuff. So if I look at the first one, it says there are only two American Indian or Alaska native representatives. Now, okay, I see that that is true. There are two, but notice where those two are. There's like a light blue color here. And I look at the key and it tells me what those are. And that's where that Senate detail becomes really important. Cause look, those two are in the house, the house of representatives, not the Senate. It's a different color. So that answer isn't gonna work for this particular sentence. Again, this is sentence completion before I even think about the data. So I just tested this and I can say that it is wrong. Five Hispanic representatives out of 100 despite 25%. Okay, so the point is there should be more. Is that true that there are only five out of 100 in the Senate? Well, right here I have five red dots in the Hispanic section. That seems like that could be right. But then this is actually saying there's 20 Hispanic representatives altogether. There's only one in the Senate, only one of those dark dots. There are no other Senate dots or squares. So that brings us to see. Camila, you got a question? I see your hand up. I don't quite understand the fact of it having to be a Senate. Cause I don't understand where does it say the fact that it has to be a Senate cause everyone is actually a representative. Right, but the thing is there's so, and this might be a piece of information that doesn't make sense if you're not familiar with US politics, but there are two parts of the Congress, right? One part is the Senate, one part is the House of Representatives. So this being an American style test, they often have like some things related to US politics that might assume you know some of those things. But even if you didn't, you can look at this and see, okay, I am completing this sentence, right? And it says this issue is most egregious in the Senate. In other words, the biggest problem is in the Senate, that part of the Congress. So I then should pick data that focuses on the Senate. If I don't pick that data, I'm not logically completing the sentence. Does that make sense, Sophia? Yeah, I was actually going to ask what I've seen, like is the test in color or is in black and white? Because like I've seen some practice tests that don't like illustrate very well the colors. So it was going to be more difficult to do. So I have seen like a couple of colored bar charts on the practice tests. So I've also just seen a lot of tables of data in black and white. So I mean, I don't think that should be a problem. And to be fair, you might not see a chart that looks quite like this on the actual test. To be fair, most of the time it's line graphs and bar graphs. I wanted to pick a variety of different things for practice just because we don't know exactly what they're going to throw at us. And I think it's good to practice dealing with different kinds of data. Because again, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what kind of data you're getting, it's about the process, right? It's about following that process. So if we can get comfortable doing that with a lot of different sources or different situations, it's going to be even better. So I will be honest, I don't think you're going to find too many charts quite like this on the SAT itself. But I wanted to provide us with a variety of things to practice here, and I think it's helpful. So again, just looking at the sentence though, if it's telling me I'm looking for Senate data, and I see that when I start looking at the data here, these statements are about the entire Congress, these numbers. And specifically the only ones that are in the Senate are these dark blue dots, right? So I can see that there are three of those, two in the Asian-American column and one in the Hispanic row. And then that does match up with C, which is that there are only three female minority representatives out of a body of 100 people. And so that does check out. Like, that is an accurate statement because there are only three female minority representatives in the Senate. And that is the only answer that is correct and logically completes the text. If I take a look at D, it also says there are two Asian-American representatives, which is true, there are two in the Senate, which actually makes Asian-American women overrepresented in the Senate. That part is not logical to the rest of this because we're talking about them being low, being underrepresented. So it wouldn't make sense for me to spotlight the one case where they are actually overrepresented. Yes, Nicolas. When did you get the data of 100 people? So that is implied by the fact that it's the Senate. Again, that might be a tidbit of American knowledge that you would know if you were taking this test. And I think it's good to keep that in mind. There are some things that are assumed as an American taking this test because the test knows that you're coming, I mean, you're ostensibly, right, coming out of an American system even though you're international, you're getting the same test as the Americans do. And the Senate does have 100 people. But again, even if I didn't have that specific point of data, I can confirm that this is true, right? This is accurate. There is only three. And that is something I can visibly confirm from here. So at this point, I can disprove, I can tell you straight up that this one is wrong because those two are not in the Senate. Same thing here, right? Also, notice that it said out of the 100 in this question as well. It's like giving you that information, not necessarily asking you to find it in the chart, right? Like if there's something that is maybe not in the chart but they are giving it to you as a fact, we can kind of assume that that's okay, right? So this is demonstrably false, so is this. And this one doesn't go with the text. So even if you were like a little bit doubting this part here, if you're like, ah, but it doesn't say 100 people, you could see that this is true. And then you would say, well, this is the only one that has any true information. And so I'm gonna choose that option. Good question. Any other questions about this one? I got you. Told you I spent some time on these. All right, let's move on to number two. Looks like most people are saying A on this one, so let's see what you got. Okay, so again, what data from the graph most logically completes the text? I go down here and I see not only are there now more married households where both people earn about the same amount, 29%, but there are also blank. Okay, cool. Now, again, I like to read the previous sentence that says that has changed significantly over the last 50 years. And I could see very quickly what they're telling me about here. Like, we're talking about the man in the marriage, right? Historically, 50 years ago, 1972, the man was like the only guy working 49% of the time and generally was the guy that brought home all the money. All right, he was the breadwinner. Always liked that word, you know? I like the idea of winning bread. Like it's such a simple thing to win. But okay, so clearly we're focusing on that change, that shift to a more equal relationship situation. And we see that we have 29% earning about the same. Logically, I wanna go to the further extreme. I wanna like look at now what's on the, like we started comparing what's under this line, right? Like the man side. We just explained what's in the middle. So logically, I think I wanna go here. I wanna look at this, right? And sure enough, A says a surprising 16% of marriages where the woman actually earns more than the man. And I'd say that is a pretty good way to end this sentence. I like that answer. I would probably just mark that and move on. That is true, six plus 10 is 16. And in those two cases, yes, the woman is earning more than the man. So that's pretty wild. Unimaginable 50 years ago. Yeah, A is the right answer. So does anybody have any doubts about the other ones? Just in case you want me to explain anything. If not, we'll keep moving. Yeah, I think that's pretty clear. All right, cool. All right, let's go to number three. I see a lot of a D in your answers. And I think we're on the right track here. Let's take a look. So again, question tells me the same thing. Surprise, because they're all the same. And then it says here, okay, rather, he claims that this simply reflects the general trend of people abandoning religion, which is supported by blank. Okay, so again, there's a this here. And I'd like to look at that previous sentence to kind of understand what we're talking about here. Latino studies expert Ricardo Arrena argues that this change has nothing to do with Latinos. Okay, so there, again, there's this change. Like I just wanna see a little bit more. It says, okay, the percentage of Latinos identifying as Catholic has steadily decreased. Okay, so again, notice how I'm reading this, right? I'm trying to read backwards, like get all the information I need. So I know that he's claiming that there's a trend of people abandoning religion in the United States. And we're looking for some data from this chart to support that. He's also saying that it has nothing to do with Latinos. It's not like a Latino thing. This is a general trend. But yeah, we have Latino data here, but like it's not about Latinos. It's about everybody. And so the main point that we have here in the data is that the number of Latinos identifying as Catholic has decreased. So what I get from this is that I wanna pick some data that doesn't really focus on the Latinos and instead just looks at like this idea of abandoning religion. Cause that's what he said in his final sentence. And I wanna make sure my answer is coherent with that final sentence. So looking at my options, decline in Catholicism among Latinos from 62% to 46%, that's not gonna be the right answer. Cause that's essentially what they said already here. And that doesn't really go with what he's trying to say. The fact that they saw a decrease in affiliation with all faiths between 2018 and 2012, that could work. Cause like if they're leaving all the faiths, not just Catholicism, that could be a good answer. So let me check it. 2018 to 2022, 49 to 46, okay, 19 to 14, okay, seven to seven, hang on a, wait, no, I'm sorry, I need to keep reading 49 to 43, 19 to 15, seven to six, okay, three to four. So there's a little problem there. That was not a decrease with all faiths. And again, usually when I see all, I'm reluctant to mark that, but in this case, I wanted to confirm it. And I can see here that other faiths actually saw an increase between 2018 and 2022. So that doesn't quite work. And then the increase in Catholic, that wouldn't work at all. We're not, we're looking for something opposite. 18% increase in response, saying no religious affiliation. That seems like good data for this, because he's looking for data about abandoning religion in the United States. And that's what he sees there. And if I just, I would just want to confirm it, 18% from 2014 to 2022 goes from 12 to 30. So yeah, that checks out. Okay, so I think everybody got this right. Good job. Looking at number four, I'm seeing some Cs. We'll see what we got. Okay, so they found the best predictor was blank. I don't know what we're talking about yet. Best predictor of what? Let's look at the previous sentence. They asked several questions about their internet use and how familiar they were with AI to evaluate self-reported knowledge. Okay, so there's like two variables that they're studying here. One is how often they use the internet and one is how much they say they know about AI, right? And they explain more about this here, right? So I understand that they're asking me which of those two things was like the best predictor of actual knowledge of AI, right? Whether it's internet use or their self-reported knowledge. So I think that I just got to figure that out very quickly. It shouldn't be too hard. Let's go ahead and test our answers. Internet usage, it says those who use the internet very little had the most tests with low scores. Okay, so internet is here. Very little would be like these guys. And then this would be the test low scores right here. Yeah, cause they gave them like a test, I guess, to see if they actually knew anything. It says 65, but I can see that this bar is bigger. So that's wrong. Cause this would be a better answer than this. So A is incorrect, impossible to determine. I don't think that's usually ever gonna be the right answer. And I'm probably gonna just keep moving. It does say, okay, do they have similar score distribution? I mean, just take it a quick look. I wouldn't say it's totally similar. I see some pretty big differences here. So I don't think that makes sense. Self-reported knowledge of AI is 40% of those who claim to have a lot of knowledge about AI had perfect test scores. That would do it. It is true, 47% who say they knew a lot about AI had perfect test scores. I think that's the best answer. I agree with all of you. I would mark C and move on. That looks like a good answer to me. Yep, okay. And lastly, number five. All right, so same deal. Which one most logically completes the text? Let's see. All right, researchers found it odd that on the individual level, there was a surprising inconsistency. Individuals believe that blank. Okay, so I don't know what you're talking about yet. I might just go back a little bit more. Again, read a little bit more behind. It says, recent surveys find that most Americans think that government and private businesses are not doing enough to reduce the effects of climate change. Okay, so we're talking about climate change and whether people are doing enough for it. And they're saying there's this inconsistency on the individual level. So it says, okay, individuals believe that they are generally doing the right amount to help second only to environmental advocacy organizations. I don't really see an inconsistency there because like, I mean, environmental organizations should be the ones doing the most, right? It's like in their name, that's what they do. So I don't feel like it's inconsistent that people feel they're doing the right amount. And that's second, I don't know. All right, they're not doing too little overall. Yet, when asked about ordinary Americans, that number jumps to 66%. I think there's something interesting there. Also, there's that word yet, which could be useful for an inconsistency. I'm gonna take a look at this one. Okay, so individuals believe that they are not doing too little overall. Overall, like 47% would be less than like the midpoint. So you yourself as an individual, 47% of the people responded that they themselves were doing too little. So overall, the majority doesn't feel that way. This part is true. This first part is true so far. So actually, we're off to a good start here. And then when asked about ordinary Americans, that number jumps to 66%, ordinary Americans, 66%. Okay, that is also true. What's the inconsistency that could be in this answer? This one's a little more abstract, but I do see something inconsistent here. Anybody have an idea? I mean, think about what they're asking here, right? They're surveying people and asking them, how do you feel about these groups and their actions about climate change? And one of the groups is you yourself, like they're saying, okay, and how do you feel that you're doing as an individual? One of the individuals also belong to another group in this survey. What is that other group? No, y'all are pretty quiet. Don't leave me hanging. It's not a trick question. Okay, Mohammed, thank you for the text. Yes, the ordinary Americans. Like think about it. All right, if I interview Americans and I ask them these questions, I say, how are you doing as an individual? And you say, I think I'm doing about the right amount. I'm not doing too little. I'm doing pretty good with climate change. How do you feel about ordinary Americans? Oh, they're not doing enough. Very few are doing the right amount. Like think about the inconsistency there, right? Cause like you are one of the ordinary Americans in this survey, like you're, so you're assuming that you basically every, the trend is that most people are saying, I'm doing good, I'm doing enough. But then when they ask them about the other Americans they're saying, oh, they're not doing enough. So like everybody is sort of saying that they're doing better than everybody else. And so that's where there's a bit of an inconsistency here. Like you would expect people's perceptions of others and themselves, you would kind of expect that to be more similar. Like if you're one of the ordinary Americans, why do you think that you're doing so good and everybody else is not? Cause that's a pretty big jump too. To go from 47% saying too little, meaning most people did not say that they personally were doing too little. Most people said they were doing the right amount or perhaps even too much. Also, who the heck is answering too much to this question? There's no way you could be doing too much for the climate. Come on, knock it off. Who do you think you are? But okay, right? See, like that number then suddenly goes way down when we ask them about other people, which includes themselves. So that's kind of where we're getting a questionable thing here, something that does stand out to me as an inconsistency, okay? So now look at some of the other options, right? Again, this one doesn't make a lot of sense cause I don't see it inconsistency here. It makes perfect sense that the environmental advocacy organizations would be doing more, right? They should be the best group. They're rarely doing too much to help a figure lower than any other group. This is true. This is true. And I could argue that this is a bit inconsistent with the data a little bit, but then at the same time, it's not significantly lower than every other group. There's some other low numbers here that are kind of similar. And I mean, I don't know if that makes it an inconsistency per se because it's like, yeah, it's lower than any other group, sure, but then why wouldn't I just mark that large businesses have 69% doing too little? Like that's bigger than any other group. The 48% here in this too is like bigger than other groups. Like why is this one an inconsistency and this one is not? Like if I could just rephrase this, it doesn't quite work. I feel like we need to compare kind of two things here. And this last one seems a little silly to argue because like, yeah, there's individuals in large corporations and businesses, but like, I mean, businesses make decisions because of multiple people's decisions. It's not just like each individual's actions, you know? So looking at this, I feel like B is the best answer because B does focus on individuals and ordinary Americans are also a group of individuals that those two groups overlap, right? One is included in the other. So it makes sense to compare those two numbers and then seeing that they are saying, oh, I'm doing fine, but my neighbor is not, it's a little inconsistent. I can see the logic behind that one. So yeah, I think B is your best answer in this case. Little bit tricky by design. I wanted to make some of these hard, some of them easy. So any questions? Negativo. Okay, then let's go ahead and move on to the other kind. Our supporting claims style questions. I'm gonna send those over to you. Let's see how you handle these ones. So again, the other kind of question with data will be like, there won't be a blank, right? You're not gonna fill in the blank, you're just gonna try to support the claim in the text by using the data. So we're gonna have a very similar approach, but just, instead of focusing just on that sentence or the last couple of sentences, you have to find the claim, which could be anywhere. So make sure you look for that claim, identify that so that you understand what the researcher is trying to say, and then use that information to help you choose the right responses or eliminate others, okay? So I just saw your comments if you have paper straws, yeah, exactly, right? I use paper straws, I'm doing a good job. Kelly down the street doesn't use a paper straw. She waters her grass five times a week. Exactly, so yeah, we'll go over to our supporting claims style questions, and I'm gonna set another timer. Well, let's put another seven minutes on this baby. So I think that's a reasonable amount. Let's see if we can go a little faster this time on this one. Again, try to apply the same logic that we did here. All right, now set that timer and let's get going. All right, that was seven minutes. Show me what you got. I was just on number five. I got distracted for a minute. Again, it's okay if you haven't finished, but I wanna know at least how far you got, so send me what you have. Feel fast. All right, thank you, Mo, thank you, Nicolas. Okay, looks like most of us got through like four. All right, that's cool. Yeah, if we're missing the fifth, that's all right, we'll do it together. Let's take a look at it. All right, sharing the screen because I'm supposed to do that, not forget. All right, let's do this thing. Not sure on the last one. Okay, Camilla got them all, nice. All right, I like your arrows, by the way, Camilla. That's good text right there. All right, let's see what we got here. So first one here, okay. Again, researchers claim I gotta find that claim. I'm gonna go down here and I sorta, I like to look for names, capital letters. That's a good way to find it fast. I see marketing expert Jill McCormick has been studying this data and believes the dating apps need to focus on specific relationship statuses in order to find growth. There's my claim, okay. And she kinda points out like a little bit more that most dating apps are generalized or focused on groups of people according to their other factors like religion and national origin. And it kinda repeats the same thing, focusing on a specific relationship status, including less common statuses, could lead to growth. Okay, so her argument is like, we need dating apps that focus on people in specific situations, which could help us grow. All right, so I'm looking at your answers. I'm seeing some variety, take a look. All right, so first one here says, 30% of all US adults have used a dating app meaning that there's significant room for growth across all relationship statuses. See, I don't like this one because here's the thing. Look at what she's telling us, right? She says we need to focus on specific statuses, including less common statuses, less common situations. So I probably don't wanna choose the answer that focuses on all of them. I wanna focus on something specific. I wanna look for one, maybe one specific group or one that might be less common. I know it doesn't give me data about how frequent some of these things are, but I might be able to infer that a little bit with just a little bit of reason. And I think it's important that I would avoid marking the one that focuses on everybody when she is saying we need to look at specific groups, specific statuses. So I would discourage this answer because I don't feel like this is gonna be specific enough. Now the group with the lowest usage rate are married couples and there are likely few dating apps that are focused on. All right, so yeah, but also like they're married. Why are they, I mean, there's a, yeah, some married couples might need, you know, to find partners if they're into that sort of thing, but I don't think that's gonna be the best answer. So I don't think anybody's like, we really need to make a dating app for married people. Like I don't think the demand there is gonna be really strong. That doesn't quite, just logically, it doesn't make sense. Water is wet, basically, yeah. Like, okay. The only group with any growth at all is the divorced separated widowed category, all of whom could benefit from having an app focused on their specific search. I kinda like this one. Is that true that they had growth? It is true, actually, look at that. They got 36, they're the only one, one point. I found it interesting how none of these moved. Like, except for that one, they got one little point. So maybe there's a sign that like, that group is still looking for something, you know, but it's just not there. I could see this being supporting the claim. Like this kinda supports the claim. They are specific situations and less common, perhaps. Like divorced, separated widowed. Like they just put three very odd circumstances together. Situations where like you were together, but you're not anymore for some reason, but it could be a variety of reasons. So I kinda see that as being a good answer. I might just check this last one. The largest group that uses them has never been married, which is who most, but yeah, okay, if most apps are designed for that group, like that doesn't really do what Jill is saying we need to do. So I think C is the best answer here. Cause like, yeah, if there was like an app specifically for the divorced guys or an app specifically for the widows who lost their husbands in some horrible accident, like I guess there could be potential for growth in that circumstance. I think that checks out. Yeah, I would say C is a good answer for number one. So yeah, I wanna make sure again, like using the keywords that the researcher gives us is how we can really figure out which options don't fit. Cause like, while I agree that A and D are true, based on the data, that's not what she's telling us that we need to do. So like I wanna pick data that supports her idea, right? And that's important to remember that we're trying to support her claim, not necessarily just choose data that is true. We're trying to support her claim. And her claim is if you wanna see growth in dating apps, you need to target more specific scenarios, you know, and get those people to like find each other, maybe, or something. And C is the only one that really does that, that only talks about that. So I think that's the best choice. B talks about a specific scenario, but it doesn't make really any sense. Okay, so let's go to two. I think I'll look at what you got. Looks like we got a lot of D in number two, some C's as well, let's see. All right, again, researchers claim, okay, so let's look at the last, he claims, oh, there it is, there's the magic word, he claims there's more than one gender pay gap and it is ineffective to look at the entire female population. Okay, so there's some important information here. He's telling us there's more than one pay gap, like maybe we need to break it down. So let's keep reading a little bit more. When examining data from younger workers, he found that the pay gap is much smaller, therefore it would be best to focus the gap on older workers. Okay, so his point is that if you look at like the whole group of women, you don't see the real problem. Like you need to break it down by age groups because in some age groups there's not much of a gap anymore and other ones there could be more. So I think that that makes some sense. Let's take a look at these answers. Despite the better situation for female workers aged 25 to 34, there's still a pay gap. Okay, but that's not what he wants. He's saying that we should focus on older workers. So that doesn't make sense. It doesn't talk about older workers. All right, comparing all female workers to those aged 25 to 34, it's clear that all women are affected by that. Okay, again, this is gonna be wrong because it's not focusing on the group he's trying to talk about. It's talking about all women, which is precisely what he said not to do. Like he's telling you you need to look at like older groups to really understand where the problem is. Female workers aged 25 to 34 have closed the gap significantly faster than other women, reducing the gap by 12 points between 1982. That could kind of work because he did say the younger workers pay gap is much smaller. Like is it true that they closed the gap faster and by 12 points? Let's take a look like, okay. So the workers aged 25 to 34 started at 74, went to 86. That is 12 points. But was it faster? Over here, the general group is 65 to 80. So actually, they didn't close the gap faster. They had a better gap to begin with, but they didn't close it faster. The other group, the general group actually closed it better. So this one's gonna be wrong too, because that's not true. That part is incorrect. And then the gap for women aged 25 to 34 is currently 10 points smaller than it is for all female workers. Proving the efforts to close the pay gap should focus on more on older workers. Okay, see, this seems like this makes sense. 10 points smaller than it is for all female workers. It is 92 versus 82. That's 10 points smaller. Okay, this is good. This is an answer. I wanna mark this answer. I like this answer. Yep, this is good. This is green. This is what we want. Yeah. So yeah, it makes sense, right? If I exclude the 25 to 34 group, obviously there's a lot more older people than there would be younger people. So I don't have to worry too much about the teenage group that's below this or the early 20s group. Naturally, there's gonna be 30 or 40 years of workers after that, so that makes sense. And that is good data according to this and it supports what he's trying to say. All right, so D is your best answer for number two. Let's go to three. Okay. Ooh, gun deaths among US kids. Oh, sad. Okay, the claim director, Rochelle Walensky, has argued that mental health support needs to be increased to address this issue. And again, if I'm not sure what this issue is, I might read backwards a little bit, even though gun violence has consistently been a significant cause of death for children in the US. It's recent surge as alarmed researchers. Okay, so we're looking at this idea that we need mental health support. That seems like a key part of her claim. And the recent surge is like the other part of it, right? That's this issue, this idea of gun deaths recently going up even more, right? So I wanna pick an answer that incorporates both of these things, you know? I think that's the thing I'm looking for. Now, the first answer says gun deaths among children sharply increased in 2020 and 2021. Is that true? Yeah, holy cow, it really did, that's remarkable. That's a sad statistic, holy crap. Yeah, up by 50% even, that's, wow, geez. So I'm actually looking at this data now, seriously, like for the first time and kind of like going, damn. Okay, so where the pandemic had a significant mental health impact on young people? Like, okay, this seems like a good answer. I mean, the first one uses the data, the first part right here, right? Like we're getting the data, that checks out and that is correct, it's sharply increased. That's a sharp increase. It's going like almost vertical at that point. And then, you know, they're introducing this information about the pandemic to point out how it would have a significant mental health impact which does match up with what she said. So I think at this point, I'm gonna mark A and just move on with my life. Any questions about these other ones? Like, this part here mentioning other times of crisis and not seeing major increases directly contradicts the claim. This one's off topic because it's talking about population and this talks about gun control laws which is not really what she's talking about. So that doesn't, that's off topic also. So, number four, let's check it out. All right, so which data from the chart would best support John Stapleton's claim? Where's John Stapleton? Oh, there he is. Okay, John Stapleton, the author of How Americans View Their Jobs, hypothesized that people would likely see their work as more integral to their identity if they received more education. Okay, this is the key claim that we're looking for here. If you get more education, you should see your job as like a bigger part of your personality or your identity. Okay, so let's take a look at our responses. Those with some college or less had approximately the same number of responses in each of the three categories. Yeah, but again, like I wanna look for more education and I probably wanna look at more important to their identity. Like I probably wanna be looking around here, you know? Like where they get more education and where they're in this column. Like I don't wanna focus on just less education. And yeah, the percent of respondents reporting their job was only somewhat important or not important. It all was the lowest in the group with post graduate studies. Okay, that could be a good piece of evidence because like, I mean, if you have post graduate studies, then you have a lot of education and you're saying your job is, they're saying it's less likely that you would say it's not important, which does check out. Those two are like the lowest. I'm still not in love with this. It's true. But he says again, like you would see their work as more integral to their identity. So I don't know that I want to focus on these areas. I think I wanna focus on this column. Like knowing what data I should be looking for is important here. So I look at this and I say, okay, yeah, this is true. But like, I wanna focus more on this one because he's saying that they should see it as more integral. I wanna match what the claim says. So I like this answer, but I wanna find something better. There's a 5% increase in those who claim their job was very important to their identity when respondents had a bachelor's degree and a further 14% increase when a master's or doctor was obtained. This feels really good. If those numbers are true, I wanna choose this answer because this is now showing me progression across like two levels of educational attainment. It's focusing on that very important to their identity response, which is what I want. So let's take a look at those numbers. 5% increase, yes. We go from 34 to 39, a further 14% increase. We go to 39 to 53, that is 14% more. So I think this is where I wanna be looking. Like this is the best answer. And it also focuses on the biggest number. 53% of post graduates say their job is very important to their overall identity. Like, yeah, I mean, if you studied the same thing for like eight, nine, 10 years, I would hope so. So I think this is the best choice. Better than B, also more specific data. I like more specific data. The upper income group had significant, yeah, so this is wrong just because it's off topic. Like, okay, this might be true, but it's focusing on the wrong thing. And I'm gonna eliminate that right away. So going through these options, this one was like kind of like meant to be the, the deceptive one where you're like, oh, this is true, but it's still not like 100% focused on what the claim is focused on. And I would avoid this one. I think B there is, is a, trying to be sneaky. Meanwhile, C is doing like a really good job of presenting the data and covering like two different levels, right? It's kind of showing us the whole progression here. So I think that's our best choice. Any questions about these? Oh, wait, there's one more. Sorry, almost forgot to get into the last one. All right, last one, Al Gore's claim. Al Gore warns that we must be careful how we communicate progress as it can suddenly cause support to decline. He specifically noted that the Paris Agreement signed in 2016 provided a false sense of comfort to many people. Okay, so his point is that like climate change, I know the Paris Agreement is about that. It says concerns about climate change. Okay, so basically like if we give people the idea that we're making a lot of progress, they stop caring. So we got to be careful to like make sure people understand we haven't solved the problem even though we are making progress makes sense. Okay, so this key detail of the Paris Agreement signed in 2016, I think is what they want me to focus on. I should be looking for like a decline after that since that is what his argument is. And several countries, including Canada and France saw modest declines in concern about climate change in 2017. This could be good. I mean, it's modest declines, so that's kind of meh. It's not the best, but like let me just check this real quick. I mean, Canada does see a modest decline. Yeah, so does France, okay. I mean, this isn't terrible. Again, this is one of those where I like it, but I'm also like, is it the best choice? And this might be a good place to just pause and quickly take a quick look at the data. I also see there are some bigger declines, you know, in some other cases. So maybe I should be looking for a better answer that has something else, you know. I'm not sold on this answer. Four of the country's surveys saw declines in concern. So that's more than the previous because the previous only cited two and others flatlined during that. Okay, so this is also kind of useful like if they're going flat, that could be a problem too. So is this true? Four countries saw declines. We already know Canada and France did. Germany did too, and then the big Poland decline. So that does check out. And then there's several others flatlining, you know, one, two, three. Okay, so there's like, yeah, there's evidence for both of these things. I think this is better than A, for sure. I like this one a lot, because like modest declines, it matches, sure, but like four countries versus two and several others flatlining is like an extra point that I think helps it out. And I might just keep going just to see for, okay, although they did see a drop. So right away, because of this although I don't think this is gonna be the right answer. I'm just already thinking negative. Most of them bounced back to 2018. So again, like this doesn't support his point. It's going further past this. Like we don't want this. The U.S. and UK too, the most important millennium players are all concerned about cause rise. All right, this directly contradicts the claim. So no, so yeah. So I feel like this is something to watch out for with these questions. There's often one answer that is definitely correct, but isn't the best supporting answer, you know? So in this case, like A, definitely correct, but not as good as B, right? In this case too, you know, definitely correct B, but not quite as good as C. You know, C is more specific. It gives us more data. It's better. It focuses on the thing the claim focuses on. In this case, like we saw this one right away. I think this one was really good and I didn't see any reason to continue. Here, you know, there might be part of an answer that feels good, but then the rest is not. So you gotta be careful with those. Like this is true, but it doesn't quite focus on the claim. Like this one, yeah, okay, this is accurate, but that's not what we're trying to ask, right? And then in this case too, we had like, yeah, this is true, but again, we're looking for specific, less common situations, not all situations. So I think those are the two common things to watch out for is like, on one hand, you have some responses that, you know, might be correct, but they're not necessarily the best choice. And then you also have some responses that are correct, but they're not addressing the claim directly. So you wanna make sure that you understand the claim very clearly so that you don't mark any answers that aren't supporting that claim, right? Even if they are true. I feel like with the supporting claims ones, they tend to have more true data, right? The answers tend to be more correct, but not necessarily matching the claim. So I think that's the key thing to watch out for here. And then just making sure that, you know, even if you like an answer, make sure that it is 100% true and that it 100% supports that claim, because I could see where this one supports the claim like 80%, but there's still that 20%. Or here, you know, okay, this supports the claim like 90% maybe, you know, but still this could be better. This doesn't inspire as much confidence, modest declines. I wanna look at like a bigger thing, right? I wanna support it with the best evidence I have. So that's some advice for that. I think we should take a little break. It's been a lot of hard charts and graphs questions. So we'll take 10 minutes and we'll come back here and we'll continue. We're gonna do a little bit more review of some other question types to close out tonight. My wonderful people, thank you for tuning into this. We're gonna start up the second part of this class in just a couple of minutes, but I wanted to let everybody know here that I'm gonna be doing a whole other class just for the channel coming up next week. So I'm gonna do that in a schedule that I think will be a little easier for a lot of you to check out, because I know a lot of people check this out from other parts of the world, and it's super cool that I get to like, interact with all these awesome people from places like India and Bangladesh and Vietnam and stuff, but I realize evening time in Peru is probably not very convenient for you. So I'm gonna do a live stream that's gonna be earlier in the day on Monday next week, and it's just gonna be for all of you so that you can come in and ask any questions you want about any of the materials we have or like any of the exercises we're doing here so that we can go over that stuff together. And I'm just gonna go with the flow and do whatever you want to do for the day. So that's not part of my regular program, but it's something that I want to do for everybody here watching and following along with these, you know, SAT classes. And now that I have pretty much finished all the materials that I have, I still have a few more to kind of put out. I'm also gonna be building some English full practice tests. I know I promised I would do that a while ago, so I'm sorry it's taking me so long. But I now have hundreds of SAT questions that I can put together and make and I have stuff from every single question category. So that's what we're gonna do. So yeah, just wanted to let you know that so that you know to come check back in next week and you know, be ready. I'll probably do it like around like 11 or 12 o'clock in the morning Peru time, which would put it in like late evening for most people in other parts of the world. So it should work out. And if not, you can always check out the recording and stuff, but obviously the idea is that you're there so we can talk, all right? So yeah, we're gonna do a little bit more grammar and supporting claims. So let's get to it. Alrighty, everybody. I sent two files over already so you know what's coming up next. I wanna start with those supporting claims questions that I sent because I think it's good for us to continue practicing those. Those tend to be hard questions that appear on hard modules. And since we just did a bunch of like supporting claims with data, your brain should definitely be in supporting claims mode. So let's try to get her done. So yeah, grab that support claims questions set two and that's what we're gonna do next. And I'm gonna slap a timer on this one. We'll go, let's go with six minutes. I think we should be getting, we should be working on our timing. So let's try to go hard and fast right now. All right, are we all back ready to go? Gonna get a quick confirmation before I start the timer. All right, thank you, Moe. So yeah, I'm gonna set the timer for six minutes and you've got five questions. So let's get them done and then send me your answers when you're finished. Okay, that one's actually pretty easy. Oh my battery is critical. I'm not trying to flex my mouse on you but I do have a pretty sweet mouse. All right, so, first one's not bad. But was it better? Yeah, okay, this one's trickier. Okay, so it's all about this, the complexity and beauty of the pieces. All right, pretty straightforward here. Couple minutes. All right, we've got 10 seconds, six minutes. I think that should be enough for these. I feel like we should be able to find these answers fairly quickly. They're not as complicated as the last ones. Go ahead and send me what you got. All right, thank you, Mohamed, got yours. All right, skipped a couple, that's okay. Smart thing to do if you get stuck on something, move on and keep trying to answer more. You can always come back. It's a good thing to practice, actually. Contrary to popular beliefs, staring at the question until the answer comes from divine inspiration does not usually happen. So I don't recommend that approach. Mila Esteban, Nicole, thank you, sir. Lovely. I like how there was a little ripple in your answer. Nice. All right, looks like we're mostly agreeing on our responses so far, but we got different numbers of answers and questions. So let's take a look and see what we got here. All right, cool. So, first one here, based on the outcome of the study, what is the result likely observed by the scientists? Again, we're looking for kind of like the outcome, they tell us that we got the outcome, we're looking for what their result is, essentially what would support that claim that's in the text, right? It's phrased a little differently here, but we gotta be able to process that. Let me go ahead and share my screen too, because I almost forgot I've been doing good on that. So that's the closest I've come to forgetting today. Pretty good, I'd say. All right, so they said the results of the study confirmed the hypothesis. Well, I don't know what the hypothesis is, so let me find that word hypothesis. What's the hypothesis? There it is, the hypothesis that the composition of the lithosphere, again, I don't really know what that is, but that's okay. All right, composition of the lithosphere is partially responsible for the creation of mountain ranges. Okay, so basically we're looking for a connection between this and this, and they say that the study confirmed the hypothesis. So I'm just gonna look for whichever answer has the strongest support for this idea that this thing affects this thing. I don't need to know what those things are. I don't really need to know what all they did. I just need to look for a result that does that. Nicholas, which one did you pick? I wanna hear from you guys a little bit. The first one, letter D. Okay, and what did you see in D that made you say that's the right answer? Um, ABC are actually against the claim, and D is the only one. Okay. Recent paper. I would agree with that if we're going through the process of elimination. Keywords, it's sometimes good to know what those phrases might be. What was the key phrase in D that lets us know it's actually supporting the claim? It was like two words. A strong correlation. That's the one, thank you. Exactly, this right here, that's gonna be our clue, right? Cause we have, if we compare to the other answers, we've got no correlation, so that means there's no relationship, so that's gonna be bad. Limited potential, I mean, hey, okay, maybe that's something, but it's limited. I don't love that. Did not demonstrate a measurable response means nothing happened. So yeah, that leaves us with D, strong correlation, that would be our best choice, right? So again, I don't have to stress too much about reading all this stuff. I don't have to understand every detail. I just need to understand how to find the right answer. And in this case, I'm looking for a relationship between these two things. It says they confirm the hypothesis. Now again, if the outcome of the study was something different, if it didn't confirm the hypothesis, then maybe A is now the correct answer, right? So this is why it's important to make sure I understand based on, again, I like to read what comes at the end cause I feel like that's usually a good place to start. And then when it said the hypothesis, I went back here and that's how we get the right answer. Very nice. All right, let's see. Looks like pretty much everybody's agreeing on the second one as well. Let's take a look at this. So again, I need to find the hypothesis. Okay, again, first sentence, last sentence is usually a good place to go. The results indicated there was indeed a significant association between the two variables. And then first sentence tells me that they're studying this, okay. Social media could be linked to an increase in depression. So using more social media, you get more depression, yay. All right, and there was indeed a significant association, so perfect. I've got everything I need by just reading the first part and the last part. Let's look for the right answers. Muhammad, what'd you have for this one? I was curious to hear your reasoning, Muhammad. What do you have here? Maybe we lost him. Esteban, what did you put for this one? For the second one? Literally. Okay, and what did you see indeed that you liked? Well, let me remember. Okay, so basically because the text says that there was a relation between use of social media and depression levels, so that literally says like more social media accounts, which would be social media use, relates to higher rates of depression. Okay, perfect, yeah. And that, again, it's good to keep an eye out of how they might phrase things differently. So I think it's really good what you just said, how like multiple media accounts equals social media use, right? Sometimes we gotta be ready to like change terms or identify phrases that are essentially saying the same thing, right? So this right here is a good piece of information, and then having higher rates of depression would also confirm that. So yes, we have both things here, and we can see that all these other ones either don't have that connection or actually go in the opposite direction. All right, so far so good. Number three, I'm now seeing some different responses actually from everybody, which I like. Okay, that makes it more interesting. All right, so I think this is the trickiest one of this set. Let's take a look at what we got. So this one's interesting, by the way, the question gives us the claim kind of that evidence that music increases comprehension. So they kinda tell us a little bit of what we're looking for already, which is convenient, right? But I may need to then, if they do this for me, if they ever give you a little bit of the claim in the question, that's a sign that the answer choices are gonna be more technical, and so I'm gonna wanna make sure I understand what they did. Like anytime I see this information in the question, that's a clue that, okay, I don't have to find the claim anymore because the claim is here. I need to know how we got there, right? So, you know, we got here again, first part, last part's a good place to read, right? Okay, so, okay, the hypothesis of listening to music while studying can improve comprehension of the material. Cool, okay, great. So we already knew that from here, that checks out. Now, they have a explanation of what their experiment did, right? 20 participants listen to classical music while studying a foreign language, and then they were timed on how long it took them to complete the material and were given scores according to how accurately they answered the questions. Okay, all right, and then it says that, you know, half the participants listen to music, the other half studying in silence, okay, and weeks later, both groups were asked to complete similar material without any music. So, in this case, because they gave me this, I understand I have to read more because like I can expect that the answers are gonna focus on some of these, you know, details, right, didn't understand this one at all, Sophie, yeah. All right, so let's take a look at what we got again. I understand that their experiment is okay. We got two groups, one that listens to music while they study the foreign language and one that doesn't, both of them take a test, and then a couple of weeks later, they come back and they take a similar test, and nobody uses any music, right? So if I think about what would be the best outcome? Like if I really wanna show that music led to increased comprehension, what would I want to see? I would ideally wanna see two things, right? First, that the group that had the music got better scores. I would expect to see better scores, at least in that first attempt, because they listen to music. And then, I think it would be really nice if they retained those benefits. Like if you come back a couple of weeks later and you still remember, you still have that comprehension, that would seem like a pretty good thing here. I would say that's probably a good idea. Because that extra detail of them coming back and taking the test again without music would then be there to sort of double check those results. So I feel like that detail is also important. So I think I wanna look for an answer like that, all right? Now, I'm seeing some of the different, so I see some A's, I see some B's, and I see some C's. I don't see any D's, so let's just go look at D. Any participants enjoyed this study time more? Yeah, okay, all right, good. None of us marked this one. This one's obviously bad. All right, so let's go ahead and look at A, B, and C. So participants listening to music completed the material in half the time as those who were not listening to music. This does seem like this could be positive. What's the only problem with that? I think the test highlights accuracy instead of time, so. Okay, I think so too, right? Like comprehension, I don't know that speed necessarily equals comprehension, right? Like if you guys do these exam, if you do these practices in two minutes, but you get them all wrong, like is that better? No, I'd rather you take six minutes and get them all right than do it in two minutes and get them all wrong. So I feel like that first one feels like it's okay, but it's leaving out maybe something about this experiment that would be more helpful, right? The participants who completed the material with music had higher scores in both their first attempt and in their second attempt. Okay, so this feels really good, because like, yeah, they got better scores the first time they did it and they remembered it later. Like they came back and could still do it without the music. So clearly the music had some sort of like long-term benefit as well as a short-term benefit and that's like two benefits and I like that a lot. I would probably say that's the right answer. Now, this one says the participants completed the material more accurately when listening to music than on their second attempt. So this one's kind of saying they got the first part but not the second part. So which do you think would be better if you're the researcher? What would you rather see if you're trying to prove that music had benefits? B or C? Feels like, I think B is definitely the better choice, right? Like I'm looking for, sorry, go ahead. If I'm the researcher, I would use the second test to see if like to measure if it is a control like experiment to say. So I would expect that the people who use music and got high rates in the first exam would get high rates in the second one because they are not using music. Okay, and I get what you're saying. Like you could see it that way, right? Like, okay, because they actually got worse performance that further proves that the music was the reason, right? Like if I'm following you correctly? Yeah. So I get that logic and I think that's why this one's a little tricky. I think the key thing to think about is like, you know, could they be looking for something else related to this idea of comprehension of material? And the fact that they're doing similar material, if they change the material to like a completely different kind of exercise or a completely different type of material, then I would agree with you, you know? Like in that case, I would be like, okay, perfect. Cause now we change topics and we see that their performance goes up, then it would make perfect sense. But the fact that they're completing similar material, like I'm guessing that they are just changing maybe the sentences or the words a little bit in this language thing. So it's like, do you also remember, did the music help you retain? Cause comprehension, I mean, if you know, you get it right the first time, that's great. But then if you can do it again, that shows the music had a really positive impact, like an even stronger one. So I think that your logic is really, really good. And I'm glad that you're looking at it that way because that is a very good scientific analysis. At the same time, I think that last line of similar material kind of leads me to believe that they're hoping to see a similar result. So I feel like that supports this B answer a little bit more. And again, if it changed, like if it was on a completely different topic or a different foreign language or something, I would agree with you there. Does that make sense? Yeah, it makes sense. Okay. Yeah, this one's, this was like the hard one from this set, I think. Cause this one has a couple of choices where you're like, I could see all these being good. And you have to kind of analyze their experiment a little bit in this case. So this one's tricky. But yeah, B would be your best choice. Esteban, you got a question? Yes. I mean, what confused me of the text is that it says that listening to music while studying can improve comprehension. So that's why I still don't understand why the answer would be B. Because it says like while listening to music while in the second attempt it doesn't. So I think, well, are you saying that like you think that in the second opportunity they aren't studying or? No, I mean, it says that studying while listening to music improve results. But it says that in the second attempt they didn't listen to music, right? Right. So again, I think what they're looking at here is like, all right, you did this once and we see that there's a difference. Now, if we ask you to come back and do something similar, can you recall, like, did you retain it better? Right? Like if you can still, you know what I'm saying? Like now I can see that not only did you do better when you had the music, but that music left a permanent impact on you. Like a long-term impact that I can now measure and prove. Because I took the music away, but you still have the benefit. So clearly the music gave you both a short-term and long-term benefit. And that's why I think B is really good. Because it's actually showing us like both sides of it, right? Like a short-term and long-term. It's called a longitudinal study. Yeah. Also the question says which one increases the comprehension? Is there a problem? You think there's a problem with that? No, no. If it said decreases, then B would be wrong. Yes. But it said increase though we were seeing for something positive. Yes, that's also true. Correct. And that's actually a good observation too. You could argue that maybe because C is giving us something kind of negative or not positive, it doesn't fit as well. I think that's a fair point. I hadn't actually thought about that reason. So nice idea there. Yeah. Again, this one's got a few different pieces and parts that are kind of tricky to put together. I will say I've looked at this one a few times already now and it still gives me like, it's taken me time to kind of process all the reasons for this one. I feel like today I'm getting it more and yours was like the last one I've been missing. So yeah. This one's got a few pieces and parts, you know? Again, the clue for me to look at this one a little more carefully is the fact that they're giving me the claim. And when they're giving me the claim, it's like, ooh, okay. Now you're really focusing more on the evidence and I gotta start thinking really carefully about their experiment that they set up. So if you ever see that, just keep an eye out for that because they're giving you something for free that they normally ask you to find. So that means they're gonna get you with something else that's a little harder. All right, so looking at number four. Camila, what did you have for four? Were you able to see this one? Yeah, you sent me your answers. Yeah, I put a number, I call it the number C. Which one's right? C, okay. Better C, I said. I heard number for a second, I got confused. So, okay. Yeah, C, yes. Yeah, this is a, I've seen a few versions of this kind of supporting claims question where like we're just trying to evaluate really what is good evidence like at the end of the day. So he's fascinated by the complexity and this is the key words right here, the complexity and beauty of the pieces. Like this is where he's telling us what he's looking for, you know. So he's looking to use Mozart's work and focusing on these details. So I wanna look for something that's positive about Mozart's work. This one's obviously negative. The fact that it starts with despite is a clue. Other students have expressed interest in Mozart's music. Doesn't matter what other people do. That's not a good reason for you to do anything in life. Mozart's musical compositions demonstrate melodic movements that were uncommon among, okay, there you go. That's what do they have, what do they bring to the table that nobody else does, that's your good answer. His teacher agrees, cool, but you know what? Like that's not, again, that's kind of like B. That's other people's opinions. Your teachers can be wrong. So, you know, just because the teacher agrees doesn't mean it's a good idea. So yeah, I think that's all good. All right, and then the last one, take a look at what you got here. Let's see what we got here. Okay, so again, this is a quote from the interview kind of claim situation where these are pretty straightforward, like I just wanna know again, what is the expert's claim? I'm looking for the word expert. I also see that, okay, it says they discussed the importance of being traffic law, seat belts, distracted driving, okay, there's that. Also suggested the driver should be more aware of their surroundings and more mindful of pedestrian and cyclist safety. Okay, so I got kind of two key details of this claim. I just gotta make sure that I match my answers. And since they're telling me that I wanna be aware of pedestrian and cyclist safety, I can tell you A is gonna be wrong because it's blaming those people, right? It's blaming the pedestrians and the cyclists, whereas it says here they should be mindful of those people. Seat belts aren't completely necessary. No, that's gonna be wrong because this said wearing seat belts. Distracted driving is a major issue. Okay, yeah, this feels like a good one because it's focusing on something drivers should do, avoiding distracted driving was up here in the claims. Beautiful, I think that's all we need. Again, this one also blames pedestrians and cyclists, so that one's also wrong. Easy peasy, easy, yeah, you'll love to see it. Any questions about any of these? All good, all good in the hood? All right, I sent another file, but I don't think we have quite enough time to look at it. I just wanted to go real quickly to talk about what we should do on test day real quick, just real quick, to talk about this for a minute. So let me share that with you. Because as a reminder, the 21st is the last day to sign up for the digital SAT if you are bringing your own device. If you're not bringing your own device, then it's already too late, because I hope you've already signed up. But the one thing I just wanted to remind everybody of what they should bring for the test day because there are some things that are different these days with the digital SAT. Just think it's a good idea to go over all this stuff really quick. So main thing, here's a full list of everything that you're gonna need. First of all, your test confirmation. You have to have this with you. You can also email it to yourself and just open it up on your phone. It doesn't have to be printed, but I like printing these things out just to be safe. The last thing I want is for you to get there and not be able to find it or have a problem with your phone. And you need your test confirmation to get in. That will appear in Blue Book a few days before the test. So if you've already signed up for the test, you're not gonna be able to do this until like five days before. So don't panic. If you don't see it, you will see it eventually in Blue Book, but you just gotta make sure that you're signed up for the test. Five days before, you're gonna have to download some additional material to your device and then it will give you the option to print out your test confirmation or email it to yourself. And you can just do either of those ways. Again, I like printing these things out because then you got a piece of paper and a piece of paper never has technical problems unless it catches on fire or blows away in the wind. Your ID, make sure that's valid as well. You should always have. You also should check this depending on your country for those who are not from Peru. Us in Peru, we can use DNA or passport, but there are some countries where you can only use your passport. So make sure you check the ID requirements on the College Board website if you're not from Peru and you're gonna use, like I don't want you to go there with the wrong form of ID and get in trouble. So in Peru, we wanna use our DNA, passport, other countries, double check your requirements. Personal device, make sure Blue Book's installed, updated and fully charged, okay? About that last point. So the test center is not required to give a plug to every person. There is no rule that says they have to do that. So understand that you need to be fully charged and ideally a device that can stay charged for three hours would be recommended. If your device cannot do that, you can still complete the test, but you may have to wait. Like if they can give you a charger the whole time, great. If they can plug you in the whole test, you're lucky. But your test center might not be able to do that. They don't have to. So you may get stuck having to like charge your laptop and wait, you know, until it's charged up again and then you can continue the test. So, sorry. It is possible that you can recharge, but ideally we want to avoid that. If you do, you know, have a laptop, you're not sure how long it's gonna last. Still bring your charger, no matter what, definitely bring your charger so you can plug in and bring the beefiest, chonkiest one you have so that you can charge up quickly, okay? I recommend bringing a mouse. I'm a big fan of a mouse. I think it makes you more accurate and faster. You do you try different things until you know what works best for you, but me personally, I would like to use a mouse. I think it's faster, I think it's more efficient. You're allowed to bring a mouse on the test, so I would encourage you to bring one. Obviously bring your charger, pencil and eraser. They're gonna give you paper for math so you can use a pencil and eraser to work on math problems if you want to do them by hand, if that works better for you. I would recommend you do that just because why not? Even though they are gonna give you a calculator. I've gotten some feedback on this comment. I'm not the math guy, so maybe I shouldn't be telling you not to waste time with the blue book calculator, but me personally, the idea of typing in numbers or clicking my mouse on those numbers is not as comfortable. I personally wouldn't wanna do that, but try both, see what works for you. I probably shouldn't just blanket say it's a bad idea, but I just think it's better to use something that you're familiar with and something that you can have on the side so that you're not opening and closing the calculator or like blocking parts of the question with the calculator. Like personally, I think it's more efficient to use your own calculator. As far as how much paper Sophia, I understand they're supposed to give you like two pages. I don't know if they have more. I don't think you can bring more. They haven't been extremely clear about that, but I understand they're gonna give you a couple of pages. So you may need to do some erasing to make some space or write smaller or try to be selective in which questions you do hand work on, you know? I don't know how many pages they're gonna give you. You might be able to get luck. If they're a nice test center, maybe they'll give you more. I'm just going by what they officially said in the guide for test centers, which we have access to for reasons. So I know that it says that they say to have two pieces of paper per applicant. So I know it says officially it could be two pieces of paper. Maybe they'll give you more. Maybe they'll be nice. I don't know, you know? But there's no guarantees. So assume that you're only gonna get two and obviously you can use front and back, you know? And that's basically everything that you need to bring for the test. So just wanted to go over that real quick. And that's gonna be it for today. So again, I wanted to thank everybody for attending the classes, for your participation here. It's been a lot of fun and I've enjoyed having a nice varied group here. It's been very cool. So yeah, thank you guys for all your time here. If you need some help with registration, we're gonna stick around and do some of that. And otherwise, good luck with the rest of your classes and good luck on your test. And we will be in touch as I'm gonna have more material for you to use to get ready for the test and everything. And I'm gonna be putting together those English practice tests that I've been promising so that you can do more than just what's in Blue Book. So yeah, we'll get that going. All right, so I'll see y'all later. Thank you so much. Thank you. You guys, take it easy. Let me know if you need-